RE: draft CURIE review

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Veillard [mailto:veillard@redhat.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, 2008 August 19 9:28
> To: Grosso, Paul
> Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: draft CURIE review
> 
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 12:38:36PM -0400, Grosso, Paul wrote:
> > 
> > draft review--please comment.
> > 
> > paul
> > 
> > --------------------------
> > 
> > Various members of the XML Core WG have reviewed the
> > CURIE specification at several stages of development, 
> > and the WG has discussed CURIEs among themselves 
> > several times.
> > 
> > There is disagreement among the WG members about the
> > value of CURIEs.  While some members don't object
> > to them as long as it isn't claimed that a CURIE
> > is a namespace, others fear the similarity with
> > QNames will be confusing at best and possibly
> > problematic for certain applications and tools,
> > and several of us think CURIEs are a bad idea.
> > 
> > At this time, while most of the XML Core WG would
> > rather not have CURIEs continue to be proposed and
> > used, we have given up spending energy fighting
> > what seems to be a losing cause.
> 
>   Sounds fine to me, while the last sentence sounds
> very negative it's probably the right message.  I'm
> just wondering if 'lost cause' isn't better

I did change the last part of the actual review that
I sent in yesterday.  fwiw, the last para now reads:

 At this time, while most of the XML Core WG would
 rather not have CURIEs continue to be proposed and
 used, we have resigned ourselves to the probability
 that they will go forward, and we have decided not to 
 make a formal objection.  However, we would appreciate 
 that our reluctance be brought to the attention of the 
 W3C staff at the appropriate time in the progression of 
 this specification so that no one can say that the XML
 Core WG had no problems with the idea of CURIEs.

paul

Received on Friday, 22 August 2008 14:28:07 UTC